Steiner said... It stands as a basis for discussion then. Blind acceptance and dumb acquiescence is a dangerous tool to place in anyone's hands. Others will have said different things, and these others are just as valid. Is it guruism to accept that the outpourings of any one individual and his acolytes is the only show in town?
You might want to ponder the difference between "Steiner said" and "Steiner dictates..."

You don't understand
This is where the arrogance begins; with the supposition that "understand" and "agree" mean the same thing. One does not invariably lead to the other, and we contend that such a premise is an early indicator of the oligarchic essence of "community" in the context of Anthroposophy. It might transpire that you will be subjected to the warm and fuzzy, gentler "Steiner indicated" Don't be fooled. We found this to be cast in concrete just as much as "Steiner said". Find out for yourself though.

Aww...that's emphasising the negative, now largely superseded by:

Oh, we only take what we want out of Steiner

Meaning... what? Pretend the negatives aren't there? You might try to ask which particular bits of Steiner are espoused and which are eschewed. And why. Some of the less savoury or downright claptrap 'indications of Steiner' may not be invoked much, but should your centre find itself in a dodgy position, "according to Steiner" is the fallback position, and, we contend, must ever be position of any centre calling itself Anthroposophical, of having affiliations with any Anthroposophic governing body.
Instances occur in different areas, but perhaps most contentious is where race is linked with spirituality.
A separate page will be produced on this topic at a later stage, but in the meantime, try this:-
"One can only understand history and all of social life, including today's social life if one pays attention to people's racial characteristics. And one can only understand all that is spiritual in the correct sense if one first examines how this spiritual element operates within people precisely through the colour of their skin."
Rudolf Steiner: Leben des Menschen und der Erde, 1923, Dornach 1980, p52

Ask you own questions on this. See for yourself just how responses such as "he was writing for the times" rest with you. Then try to obtain an affirmation that such offensive stuff is entirely disregarded, even in the closed environment of  the School of Spiritual Science (see "First Class" page) 
In many instances, this is just about as close you will get to an admission that there might even be flaws in Steiner's thinking.
Worth thinking about though eh? And worthy of a bit more than "taken out of context" and "emphasizing the negative"    In general, this is how discussion and debate works: here's what I think, what do think? This "emphasising the negative" is a fairly transparent attempt at using personal criticism to suppress or at least control discussion.
It's negative, so let's ignore it and hope it goes away?
That won't do for us. If it is negative, then address it, deal with it. Yes even if it does mean declaring that Steiner was wrong!
In so many ways, such an assertion of the fallibility of Steiner would do so much to distance Anthroposophy from accusations of guru worship, even .
We do appreciate that some people would find such an assertion to be something like apostasy. That is for them to sort out, but we are out to help Anthroposophy set itself to stand clear of accusations described above. We really are, despite having a good idea of what will be said about us!

Keep it in the family
A euphemism for hush up. In any setting there will be lightweight occurrences which are adequately dealt with in-house. We have found this expression is used worldwide in an attempt to give a cosy feel to a situation which more properly ought to be brought to the attention of third parties.

How can you say that...? usually accompanied by anguished expressions, sometimes tears. The Big Hurt. Unfortunate, but hey, by the time you reach this point, we rather think that you will have been belittled, denigrated and hurt too. Depending on just how tenacious you have been, you might have suffered a deal of vitriol, and been taken up to the edge of demonization, all disguised behind a patronising smile of course. You might care to wonder how come when such things are directed toward you, it's supposed to be "tough love": when they come from you its lack of understanding, insensitivity, spiritual harshness etc. Surrender the high ground of sensitivity? Decide for yourself.

The Anthroposophic approach is holistic: it addresses head hands and heart. And which of these do other methods ignore? It really is so self-congratulatory to suggest that Anthroposophy alone considers the whole being. What does that imply of other centres, other methods and disciplines? What does it say of the unstinting efforts of the tens of thousands of people dedicated to providing a parallel service, frequently on a voluntary basis? Professionals might wonder about the implied aspersions cast on their work.
You need to be open to new ideas. It is unlikely that anyone would have become au fait with Anthroposophy, Waldorf, Camphill or even the name Rudolf Steiner were they not amenable to alternatives. So what new ideas do we have to be open to? Every tuppence ha'penny Walter Mitty fantasy? Probably not and that certainly isn't what is intended. Ah, it just means "open to Anthroposophy" then. In other words, one should suspend the critical faculties one would take to other things when viewing Anthroposophy. Does this ring of elitism? Does this ring of oligarchy? Does this ring of something maybe a wee bit occult, maybe even sinister?
 
He/she/you/they is/are "too much in the head" This is straight Steiner. It means you think too much and sense too little. What should you sense? The Truth of Steiner's teachings of course. The Truth...capitalised. Ask yourselves where else in occidental traditions  "The Truth" (as opposed to the truth) is so regarded. It wouldn't be in cult-like activities now...would it?
 
We are aware that "Islam" itself means "Truth". Islam is commonly regarded as a noble teacher, one of the great religions of the world. We have no issues with Islam.
.

Space and time prohibit any attempt to expand too far, but you probably believe that you understand words such as "intuition". Not according to Anthrospeak you don't. What do you think "The Christ Being" and "The Christ Impulse" mean?
Then there are the "buzz" words and phrases. You know the kind of thing: words, phrases and expressions freely banded about, and while few people actually know what they mean, you don't want to admit as much since they seem to be things that are understood by everyone else!
Let's have a look at a couple of them commonly used in Anthroposophical circles:
 
Holistic/Holism. "Looking at the whole picture" sounds wonderfully credible, laudable and all, but what does it mean in practice? Well, once one has cut away all the self-aggrandizing blurb, it seems to indicate that if you drive your car into a wall, all the hospital treatment in the world won't bring about any 'real' healing. To achieve this, you would have to look at both the car and the wall and attend to their spiritual/karmic needs first.

Eurythmy Sounds like a simple word, so simple in fact that it merits its own page at this site!
Click the link on the left to go there, especially those of you who have been told that it is "just a form of dance"
 
Insight  Profound thing insight, especially when used in spiritual/mystical/spheres where it can't be empirically tested.
Think about it though. Does it mean much more than one has arrived at a particular conviction?
Think about it again. How much humility, how much arrogance goes into such a claim? Which one of these do genuinely religious folk present as? Which do self serving people present as?
Spiritual Science
Which is it? Spiritual? Science? Are you persuaded such a thing exists, or do you see a contradiction in terms? Then again, it must be real if only because Steiner said it does!
End of story?

We trust that we have given sufficient to ensure that in your own further questioning your eyes, oh and yes your "heads, hands and hearts" are not induced to be wide shut.
Perhaps this use of language and the mindset behind it is best demonstrated by the following post to the Critic's List, accessed 30/05/05.
 
"I argue that absolutely nothing that the modern university's teacher training offers is superior to Waldorf, and that which it lacks in intensity and insight which it makes up for in arrogance. ....There was never a promise that you would be fulfilled by anyone other than your own efforts. Only a child blames a parent for their own personal shortcomings. Critics personal shortcomings are the single commonality which they all share on this list."
 
Presumably this includes those universities offering degrees in Anthroposophical Studies?
The full text of this is available at:
http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1718945480&sort=d&start=26781
 
So there you have it. According to this, any difficulty you might have is down to yourself; any shortcomings of Anthroposophy are simply not up for discussion.
Are you prepared to be told that you are of "shallow perception?"** Will you accept that everything that has gone, or might go awry is all your own fault, stemming from your own "total ignorance"?**
How about anything you are less than happy with stems from a lack of GOOD WILL?**
**See the full text.
Perhaps you are content with this.
Please be aware of what is likely to come your way if you are not, and then decide if you want to go further into the movement. It's up to you.
"...absolutely nothing that the modern university's teacher training offers is superior to Waldorf, and that which it lacks in intensity and insight which it makes up for in arrogance."
Really?
For further comment on how language is used, click on Occult? Science? button.
For further information on Critics List, click on 'Further Info' button.

Published 02/02/06

Last revision  09/09/10